Thursday, May 31, 2012

Ruby Carat is a really nice lady & editor- she has not ignored-as-usual my idea regarding the alternative utopistically positive optimist history of Cold Fusion LENR. See please: http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=18725

Ruby is receiving many interesting comments. Some like comments hot, but I prefer a calm cold comment supporting a
point of view opposite to mine over a comment at a too high temperature coming from the same side of the barricade on which I am fighting. Facts-yes, opinions-OK, strong negative feelings- NO!
A LENR colleague wrote: “Instead of science being shown as the incompetent and ridiculous slaves of religious, dogmatic, “opinion experts”, who deny anything out side of a steam engine, they could have restored some of the respect lost through their closed-minded, 19th. century reductionist philosophy that is falling apart around their ears.”
I have learned to be more tolerant with people who think differently.
My long years friendship with the skeptic author of the Cold Fusion Bibliography, Dieter Britz is an example.
I also had some empathy for Prof. S. (9 days younger than me, R.I.P.!) who used to say he will believe that Cold Fusion exists when he will see a boiler for 2 eggs using it. This is a logical fallacy- “things exist only if they can be used”- an error with some practical reason in it.
The impact of the enemies of cold fusion on the evolution of the field was not quite so fatally bad and there had been short periods when some cold fusion teams had plenty of funding. However the progress has remained slow and hesitant- the way to commercialization did not become visible.
What could change 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times more funding?- is a fine Question.
And really high quality professionals had worked for LENR worldwide despite its lack of popularity.

I opt for a more balanced answer.
“What if?” is an information rich question and we well know that: "The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco) “
However, the complete question- “what if Cold Fusion/LENR would have been embraced and gladly supported by the entire scientific community and by the society as a whole, everywhere?” is clearly a hellishly iffy, unanswerable question.
We can learn a lot from unanswerable questions. Perhaps.
“What?” “How?” I cannot answer!
But based on my Problem Solving Rules- the solution is to convert the unanswerable questions in more answerable questions.
In our case – could the success and spoiling of LENR change everything- or only accelerate the development- in the same direction as it has happened in the real history marked by oppression and financial plus resource-starvation of the field?
I think acceleration could be more likely- a prehistory of say only 5 years, superior cradle management*, Piantelli with hundreds of follower-competitors, a less enigmatic and exotic Rossi coming from inside the field, LENR+ replacing LENR easier and in much shorter time. a wonderful spirit of coopetition, fast industrialization, continuous communication between the researchers, ICCFs every 6 months. Some well known players would have been missing from the equation as Defkalion and myself. Defkalion because the field is going well and does not need a savior. I have joined the Cold fusion movement because hot fusion was contradicting my principle of continuous technological progress, however I became irreversibly dedicated to it only when almost everybody started telling it is a lost cause and I knew it isn’t and wanted to demonstrate this.

Appendix: What is cradle management?
During their first months of life, while helpless the cradle (largo sensu) is the home of the babies. When they grow and became more and more independent, the cradle is abandoned, kept in the attic or the basement, sold or donated whatever. It is too small for the child –forget it!
Something very similar happens in science on more planes- the original set-up in which the phenomenon was discovered, and the initial thinking, proto-theory used give a first theory have to be replaced with better one. This action can be painful but it is unavoidable. Cold Fusion had a very strange cradle- a wet electrolysis cell with palladium cathode, electrochemist fathers- not a good combination for a supposedly nuclear baby science.
More generally, cradle management is a part of maturization.
LENR was slow in this process- due to the lack of resources, it remained addicted to palladium- a precious metal per se, but one of the worst for the development of LENR, inadequate for
a new energy source and a trap for the poor theorists.
The alternative triumph scenario could have been avoided the problem of prolonged maturization of LENR.

A few quotations re CRADLE.
“The Past: Our cradle, not our prison; there is danger as well as appeal in its glamour. The past is for inspiration, not imitation, for continuation, not repetition.” (Unknown)

Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave” (Muhammad)

“Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin” ( Robert Green Ingersoll)

The Earth is the Cradle of the Mind -- but one cannot eternally live in a cradle.”
Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky (a similar case- the Pd-D Cell)

The feedback, echo to my newest writing was moderate, to use
a polite euphemism. However a nice comment from reader Ruby has inspired me the following idea.

An alternative history of Cold Fusion.

November 1989- the state authorities for research in
the US and in all the other industrialized countries take a
historic decision: "We will go Cold!".
That means- all the funding and forces used for Hot Fusion
will go starting from now to search and develop Cold Fusion.
Great money, thousands of scientists, many hundreds
of labs worldwide, a million of Pd-D cells (soon) all
specialized and dedicated to cold fusion. The best theorists
worldwide publishing Cold Fusion papers in peer reviewed
journals. Patent Offices following the example of US developing
fast methods for the approval of the Cold Fusion patents.
Cold Fusion has successfully climbed all the Everests of high priority.So it has started, can you tell how it has continued up to today?
Peter

Monday, May 28, 2012

With comments.TWO MUSICAL MOTTOs:
This is my blog, my writings and I belong to both cultures (Snow!) and I put everything in the frame of my problem solving system, for me LENR will be a problem as long as it is not a great energy source.

The Way to Truth is obstacled*, long, tortuous, meandering between the Hills of Error (take care “Rocks Falling!”) Go slowly like a snail on emery paper, if you hurry, you will knock down friends and lose them.
You will never arrive to the end of the way, just to your end of it.
* “obstacled way” is the antinomy of “shortcut”, IMHO

LEARNING FROM PROF. PIANTELLI:My deep gratitude to Franco Piantelli, I have learned so much from him about the LENR system he has discovered, developed and explained.

At that moment, the following teams/scientists were more visible in the fight for the energy market: Classic CF/LENR, Francesco Piantelli, Andrea Rossi and Randell Mills. They were presented as opera singers. The story became very complicated, with many falsettos heard. Later a male Maria Callas became the best singer- but who could anticipate this?The New Energy singers (metaphor):http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-energy-singers-this-is-second-and.html

Due to reasons unknown and not understandable for me, Rossi has ignored my idea and has censored it. The journalist Steve Krivit has published a very negative report about Rossi. My phobia for steam – as a problem became fatal. I have confessed that Rossi- his methods, strategy and personality are above (or under) my understanding.AN IMPOSSIBLE INTELLIGENCE TEST and GASEOUS HYDROPHOBIA.:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/impossible-intelligence-test-and.html

The 1MW demo planned by Rossi was an idea I did not like, I have anticipated bad results however I was too pessimistic.
E-cats are more collective i.e. can work together better than I have thought. It’s true Rossi’s results were clearly regressive (power and COP decreasing from the first to the last experiment, however the 1MW demo seemed to work.ANTICIPATING THE 1MW DEMO.:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/anticipating-1mw-demo.html

Rossi has generated a lot of informational smoke with his experiments, however it is almost unbelievable to think that he has performed these with devices that do not work at all- i.e. without any excess heat. The technological maturity of the E-cats seems to be a problem, however Rossi has coped quite well with the situation.THIN HOPES FOR FAT E-CATS: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/09/thin-hopes-for-fat-e-cats.html

This was written before the Oct 6 experiment perhaps the best from the series as credibility, The self-sustaining episode- not long enough to be convincing, was impressive anyway.
Probably this is also the moment when I became convinced that Defkalion is on the way to elaborate a technology much better than Rossi’s. From the very start they have discussed as serious professionals.ONE FAT-CAT BETTER THAN 52 FAT-CATS?:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/10/one-fat-cat-better-than-52-fat-cats.html

Here I am trying to apply my problem solving rules to the Ecat. Rossi declares no more experiment (public) will come and moves to the US – he says for organizing the industrial production of e-cats. He remains very active and talkative on his blog.The Ecat problem:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/12/e-cat-problem.html

THE BASICS OF LENR?:

After many months of intensive thinking, study and correspondence I have arrived to a new vision of LENR as an energy source (not as science!) and its long history but I have dared to present it in the form of a metaphor. It can be a bit anticipatory (forward looking)but it says the following terrible things:
- the classic Pd-D electrolysis system will remain weak, unreliable and short lived and will not be scaled up, never!
- the Ni-H and similar nanometric powder systems are able to give much better results than Pd-D however the drawback of low energy density and intensity remains, as such cannot be scaled up to commercial energy sources
- Rossi has found additives that are able to enhance the processes with some 2-3 orders of magnitude. Problems of engineering appear, Defkalion will solve them better and fasterthan Rossi and will be the Winner.
History will confirm or infirm these ideas. THE METAPHOR STORY OF LENR.http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/03/metaphor-story-of-lenr.html

Actually this is a sad and angry message, why it is so much easier to discuss in our forums ad infinitum small details, old facts, unproven ideas than the essence-as the future of LENR?
I have said heretical things- as Pd-D will never be a technology,
non-additivated Ni-H will be small technology (if) and nobody
shows me that I am in deep error, nobody defends LENR orthodoxy. Why? I am right?DETAILITIS KILLS DISCUSSION- IN LENR TOO:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/detailitis-kills-discussion-in-lenr-too.html

It is a presentation of LENR as a discovery born and grown up in unusually hostile circumstances, due to outer but also inner causes. It has a painfully long technological pre-history and for starting a real techno-history it must be metamorphosed in LENR+. LENR works mainly with preformed NAE, while LENR+ works with NAE formed “in situ” with much enhanced dynamics. (For the time given only one LENR colleague has explicitly accepted the existence of LENR+, different from LENR and much powerful).
I also try to explain here how could Rossi, an outsider, solve the problem of a practical LENR, LENR+. THE CONCEPT OF “MISCOVERY” AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR LENRhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/concept-of-miscovery-and-what-it-means.html

See my Problem Solving Rules- this writing is about how to solve insoluble problems- i.e. those that can be solved only if their premises are radically and creatively changed. LENR is unfortunately such a problem, it can be changed only if transformed in LENR+.SOLVING INSOLUBLE PROBLEMS:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/solving-insoluble-problems.html

Along the way to truth, but mostly when you are exhausted and near to the target, you will encounter the Moment of Truth, saying your truth is not the Truth. In this case, whose Moment of truth is coming? My one and a lot of successful experiments and wise theories will show that I was in abysmally deep error and have told here a lot of stupid things?
Or it will be the Moment of Truth for LENR and everything will change in our field, including thinking?
Che sera, sera!
Peter

Monday, May 21, 2012

I am an old researcher. Old because the life expectancy for males in this area of the world is 69.8 years and I am now 74.6 years old. And an old researcher because exactly 50 years ago I became the head of a pilot plant aiming to work out a commercial technology of epoxy plasticizers- made from vegetable oils and hydrogen peroxide; used for food grade PVC products. And I have worked in research for the rest of my life.
Old researchers have great duties/tasks. They have not more to care for their professional career (it is over)- they have to work for the future at the very peak of their skills and reputation. Impossible and infinite research tasks, insoluble problems – these define their natural activity. Their work habitat has to be the far right of the Medawar Zone, see please my classical writing: http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/FTEssay/Essays/Gluck.htm
You will see this is about CF/LENR. We will answer later to the question: “Is LENR an insoluble problem?” (and if yes, then why and how, not?)

2. This is the first part of a series.

To make a presentation of the subject “How to solve the insoluble
problems” in the frame of a single writing is a really insoluble problem. Obviously I will try to make the impossible by applying the most adequate methodology, i.e. using my own 20 Problem Solving Rules. I hope you already know that Rule No. 18 is the best for that: “Do NOT accept the premises of the problems, change them, as necessary and possible.” We have to define optimistically and pragmatically the insoluble problems as “the problems that must be radically changed before we can find a
solution for them.
One of the reasons for doing our research in more parts is the situation of the very science to which our endeavor belongs.
My friends in LENR are complaining a lot that LENR is or ignored with hostility, either it is oppressed with brutality. This statement is even more damaging in the case of problemology.
Problemology- is the study of real problems NOT mathematical
Ones, see e.g. http://ifsr.ocg.at/world/files/
It is the most useful of all sciences beyond any doubt; however have you learned problemology in the school? My 20 Rules are known, are accessible on the Web in 19 languages; will they be taught to the young generations? To any generation? Have the great Press helped to disseminate them? No, no, no!
I consider an intellectual crime that such absolutely basic discoveries of problemology as the existence of “wicked problems” see please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem are not known by everybody and people are kept illiterate in problemology.
We swim in wicked problems, we are systematically killed by them in long- very long range, the situation with many wicked problems will become desperate only after many stages of improvement, it is sooo bad…and who cares? Are you warned during your school years about the dangers of wicked problems? Do you find anti-wicked problems brochures in good hotel rooms? Many people are destroyed by these wicked social problems and have no idea how this has happened.
Very difficult issues, you see, however eventually I will offer you and the World a practical Handbook for Solving Insoluble Problems.

3.A tragic problem: problems are many times more profitable than solutions.

We, independent thinkers have to judge the things very objectively and wisely. A simplification to be avoided is “problems- bad, solutions- good.” It is not realistic in a complex world, full of contradictions, even antagonisms. As I have called this the first rule of Probletence "A problem will NOT be solved if the number, influence and/or power of the people living, taking profit from the problem, is greater than the same characteristics of the people who want solve the problem."
The first example that comes to my mind is the mission of the pharmaceutical industry. The initial purpose of it was to manufacture products and other things that make people healthy.
Very soon the means have replaced the aims and the pharmaceutical companies want to make big money by selling medicines helping (and HELLping) both people and illnesses to survive, to coexists. The best customers are those addicted for life to our products. These strange Problem-Solution hybrids are very profitable.
Or let’s take death...is it really a Problem? Some gerontologists as the famous Aubrey de Grey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey are telling us that we will solve both the problem of aging (we will remain young) and of death (we will become immortal, more or less). I suppose he is popular and makes good money and I send him the old good wish “”Bis Hundertzwanzig”- but he wishes more than 120.
Re immortality I think this could be an awfully strange solution of a problem that actually does not exist. Suppose we had been immortal from the very start (in the Garden of Eden we were so but we have sinned and good-bye eternal life!) due to immortality today a small minority of 7 billion people had to take care of some 112 billions – a real orgy of multiculturalisms- and a tremendous diversity of ages -beyond imagination.
The issue of immortality-as-solution could not be complete without the story of Eos. (You see, one of the roots of my sympathy for Defkalion is Greek mythology-an inexhaustible treasure of wise/instructive stories; Greek mythology was the last
religion with humans-like gods and vice-versa (hybridizable). Please re-readhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/01/stop-koalemos.html
it explains the connection between Greek gods and our most wicked problems- now!
OK, Eos the goddess of dawn =was what we will call today, very unjustly and in the stupid sexist mode- a blonde. Insatiable sexual appetite, a strange preference for handsome humans, well hidden intelligence. In the case of Tithonos one of her best lovers Eos has asked Zeus to make this guy immortal but forgot to ask eternal youth for him too. So, Tithonos was transformed soon in an old monster looking like a horror or nightmare figure unable to move a single part of his body, shrunken, dried, stinking. Eventually the story was settled Olympus style- Tithonos was metamorphosed in some nasty insect. (The DDR writer Franz Fuhmann, specialized in myths in the literature wrote an absolutely charming variant of this story) But the essence is: a partial solution can be much worse that the initial problem.

4. The solutions are not in old writings but in new work.

The eternal problem of death- “I die and then nothing will remain for me, nothing at all!” is psychologically unacceptable, therefore the problem, despite its inexistence has generated a lot of solutions very profitable for the vendor. See please Rule no. 10 :”NOT the solutions that are logical and perfectly rational but those that are adequate for the feelings of the potential users, even if they are illogical, have the greatest chances for fast implementation” That is, expected, desired, positive falsities are more readily ‘swallowed’ than the smart unpleasant truth. If you can offer a solution to death, “it is not over, if you believe some things, abstain from some deeds, practice some rituals, respect certain taboos, strictly follow the Rules, repeat regularly the good spells and gladly give a part of your money to us, we will warrantee you a second life. This second life will be absolutely without problems a real enchantment- the reward of your conformist behavior. Different tribes offer you their best and unique true way to transform death in a wonderful new existence.
I have learned the power of Rule 17: “Not always the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones can be solved with the greatest difficulty.” When and where this does apply, then it is irresistible. All the creative energies are consumed for the imaginary problems- and the real problems
are aggravating.
You will be forced to accept that everything is written in the Old Books- the depositaries of divine and human wisdom. It is useless to search for solutions in other places, it is counter-productive to try to create, build new solutions. Personal problem solving initiatives are discouraged.
For me the problem of death is rather acute, however I am too busy, too focused on the short future and too suspicious toward the long past, I don’t want a second life. Geography is destiny, history is a prison. Living in the past has one thing going for it; it's cheaper! (old saying, usually censored) If it is possible I will try to come back in order to see what became my dreams. If not, not. I have learned that you cannot succeed in everything.

5. I got help and inspiration

I want to tell you first of all about how to solve the insoluble social problems; a continuation of my essay: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/02/insoluble-problems-of-social-science.html. The sad truth is that after analyzing the offer and ideas of the Left and of the Right, after discovering that the present Crisis is systemic, I have concluded that the social problems are essentially insoluble. The metaphoric description of this situation is: the Whole became suddenly smaller than the sum of its Parts. In cases of synergies, the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The most adequate antonym of synergy is undermining, just think about this please.
At this point the Internet, my good friend, has sent me a sign of encouragement. Paradoxically it was an Old Book! A prophetic old book that shows masterfully the root cause of the present disaster. The book is “THE RULING MINORITY” (1974) written by Lawrence R. Krivit, the father of Steve Krivit our LENR journalist. Due to Steve’s very radical negative position re
Andrea Rossi we had some explosive exchanges of ideas (I am a 100% alpha character and a grumpy old man) but eventually we have decided that the things that unite us are more important than those in which we have antagonist opinions.
The book is a captivating lecture, Krivit-father was an excellent writer and a very skilled thinker, you can understand step by step in a natural gradation the harm done by inherited great wealth to
the society. I warmly recommend you to get the electronic (Kindle) edition of the book. Go please to: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/05/18/a-new-old-book-on-economics-and-politics/
The book is actually about one of the most damaging social phenomena- let’s call it euphemistically the problem of privileges. (parasites is not correct politically, biologically and conceptually) My septoe can be applied here: “Human rights are threatened by Human Privileges” A story repeated from the dawns of human history. The first king and the first shaman were privileged persons with no real justification. The society accepts that some people (in this case those who inherit huge riches) are above the other people. What we call democracy is undermined by phenomena as those described here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/07/dirtiest-f-word.html
and here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/04/non-event-not-as-harmless-as-i-thought.html
These two writings had zero echoes and no impact- but both describe most destructive cases of the suicidal complicity of the victims and deserve the attention of those implied.
An other pathological anomaly in problem solving: privileges are a problem but are seen as a solution. I was shocked to see how many otherwise reasonable and rational people in Romania became monarchists recently. It’s true -democracy has not offered many politicians we can trust. I think Pareto’s Law applies here in a special form- democracy here is 80% solution but 20% problem.
What’s a source of hopes: the 99% seem to have understood
that the 1% so well described and characterized by Larry Krivit so many years ago-are a problem that generates other problems.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Professor DIETER BRITZ from the Aarhus University has helped me again.
He has demonstrated his friendship and generosity from the first years of
the Cold Fusion history when he has sent me regularly his excellent CF Bibliography
first printed than on disks by snail-mail. A rule- not of problem solving: people who
were nice before the Internet are nice now too.

Ads and spam are dreadful waste of time, it is vital to get rid of them, everywhere! I would pay double price for an adless TV.
Different Recipes for Success in the World of Plants: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120504110119.htm
It is unavoidable to think about analogies with the world of people.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

New words are necessary in a world of ever increasing diversity, complexity and hostility; however it is quite difficult to generate
them. In English, I have succeeded only with ‘ego-out’ and ‘memecracy’. The main cause is that the most fantastic clumsy, sweet, hateful. creative, well sounding, obscene etc., words are all already used as names of rock bands, in the realm of modern music, anyway.
This was the case now too when I wanted to use ‘miscovery’ for a type of event that has happened during the life of LENR. See please http://miscovery.blogspot.com/ a blog dedicated as expected to music sharing and discovery,
A miscovery is a discovery plagued by bad circumstances, that has appeared in a bad place, at the wrong time- and this makes a lot of harm to its evolution.
It can be a discovery, so radical and disruptive that it even wounds itself. It can generate ideas and methods that are knocking down the society’s favorite dogmas (for example scientific dogmas) like bowling balls hitting the pins. And it is well known that dogmas are fierce vindictive enemies. Social hostility is not good for the development of a discovery or of an innovation.
Sometimes a discovery is metamorphosed in miscovery only due to some inborn weaknesses, or due to some destructive character straits of its discoverer. Many combinations of such causes are possible in practice.
Exactly as, according to Cipolla’s Second Law: “The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person” (surprising but true, ask please Koalemos!) the probability that a discovery will become an unhappy miscovery does not depend on the value or the extent of useful applications of it. Bad place, wrong timing, too surprising ideas or author(s)- all these can act synergistically, in the worst sense.
Now, it is important that a discovery converted in miscovery should be a discovery with problems- ergo working for solutions trying to change its fate and not a discovery with troubles, just whining and blaming others.
After this introduction we can discuss about the miscoveries in LENR, I am not very happy to do this but I have already accepted that our dear field of study, LENR also has had its miscoveries, from the very start. I am not waiting for much sympathy for this writing; my discovery that the wonderful great idea of Fleischmann and Pons was a miscovery- is miscovery per se. Many colleagues will consider that I am simply not smart enough to see that Cold Fusion was an innocent victim of the ill-will, envy, incurable dogmatism and long term oppression of the Big Bad Scientific Establishment.
Should I really risk and dare to call the discovery of Cold Fusion- later LENR per se by Fleischman and Pons a miscovery? Actually it was an epochal event but one that can show its formidable potential only many years later after going a long way of trials and errors and of high hopes and deep disappointments.
Could we really find a metal more disadvantageous than palladium with its huge solubility for the isotopes of hydrogen, thus making the inactive bulk to desperately fight for deuterium with the active surface?
Why was it discovered in liquid phase and not in gas phase, when even the purest water has myriads of impurity atoms?
Why it was electrolysis which is unable to protect the surface of cathodes from the adsorption of alien gases that compete with deuterium for the sites in which the “good” reactions take place?
Why this story does not started on Aug 16 1989 when Piantelli has discovered anomalous heat from a nickel-hydrogen system?
It is relatively easy to answer only for the last question; Piantelli knew well about the Fleischmann-Pons discovery and was inspired by it.
However, despite some creative approaches to work with other metals, the great majority of the (few) courageous and in a way heretic researchers who continued to work in LENR, were nad still are, generally palladium addicted and made thousands of experiments using this very platinic and expensive metal. Piantelli had no followers and get step by step the experience of the loneliness of the long distance runner.\
I am rational, secular and skeptic, therefore the words “curse, cursed’ are not in my vocabulary; however soon it became obvious that something like this exists for LENR, the experimental results in Pd-D are not well repeatable/reproducible. But this was only the most visible part of a general problem. Due to the understanding of science this made LERN vulnerable to attacks- if it cannot be reproduced then it is only pseudoscience- plus other nasty insults. People have a natural fixation for certainties and this is based on practice, is vital. An engine or a brake working, say, 70% of the time is DANGER! Despite some outstanding undeniable results, the reputation of LENR was eroded, down to the level as serving mainly as a bad example.
However it has to be recognized that a triad of troubles- low intensity, low reliability (reproducibility) and short duration was present in all experiments with very few exceptions that could not be understood or repeated.
If these weaknesses are inherent to the Pd-D system, if they are curable at all, has Pd-D LENR a future, scientific (will it be understood?) and/or technological (applications of any kind)- all these are very open questions. If somebody has answers, please…

MANY BRIGHT LENR THEORIES WERE MISCOVERED.

If there are problems with the experimental results, due to the necessity to use the scientific method, these are reflected in the functionality of the scientific theories worked out for the Pd-D variant of LENR. First quality theories predict and it is not very difficult to understand why this category is missing.Second quality theories prohibit, this includes explanations why sometimes the experiments don’t work. I know no other explanation (even qualitative) than my idea that LENR takes place in active sites and these active sites are occupied by the gases from the omnipresent air. It is a very unsuccessful idea
that was never taken seriously. Only experimental; reality uses it to make bad surprises. Thanks Piantelli the Ni-H systems do a very thorough cleaning by repeated deep degassing of the working surfaces.Third quality theories explain what has happened and we have many of them, based on diverse ideas and principles and approaches. They explain how the nuclear reactions take place in conditions in which this is impossible according to older theories. Or, on the contrary, existing verified theories just were not well understood and actually they tell that LENR is natural and even unavoidable- so everything is fine. It is a noisy competition between these theories.
The first cause of why I say that these theories were miscovered is that they are not (completely) testable due to the situation in the experimental field.
The second is even more serious, LENR does not need such theories that explain usually only one step as particles valiantly go through the Coulomb barrier; actually LENR is more complex and needs a bunch of explanations and theories. The process cannot be understood with some miracle particles or associates of them and a tormented Hamiltonian is only a part of the solution. Even in my paper from 1992 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf
I have asked theorists for something greater and more realistic i.e. including the topology, the nature and the mechanism(s) of the reaction. I have seen only one compound bunch of theories of this kind- Piantelli’s already known by many of you. See the scheme from Piantelli’s 2010 Pontignano Poster

Defkalion also says that their process is a dynamic stage of multi-stage set of reactions.
My young friend from Rio, Daniel Rocha, has found the best analogy – LENR is similar to photosynthesis. Multi-step, multi-stages, multi-phase, lot of dynamism.

NANOMETRIC POWDERS SOLVE 66% OF THE PROBLEM

It is an exaggeration; actually the high art of nanotechnology has solved 2 problems from 3 ones hitting Pd-D LENR systems and that clearly only in one case- Piantelli’s anomalous process. Good reproducibility, working in self-sustaining regime for almost 2 months continuously. However low intensity remains, despite a remarkable progress- 50-70 Watts. maximum. This would not be a disaster per se but it seems it is an inherent limit for preformed
nanostructures even in the most advanced cases-as Ahern for example.
The unavoidable conclusion is- nanopowders, pre-formed nanostructures are much better than any Pd-D system, can give a lot to Science but nothing or almost so to Technology. This implies that even the most developed systems will NOT be able to scale up. I already feel the accusations of fatal mental narrow- and short-sightedness for this statement. OK, I take the responsibility and promise to make intellectual sepukku in the very moment when a purely nanometric transition-metal-hydrogen system will be used commercially. And I will do this even post-mortem. It is researcher’s bushido.

ANDREA ROSSI TURNS A DISCOVERY IN A MISCOVERY.

I have defined the problem/mission of Cold Fusion, later LENR from the very start as becoming a very important source of energy. I have tried very hard to understand what happens, why, and especially, why not,
It is strange, kind of joke of Fatum that the Solution came from outside the LENR community, from a really unusual individual.
Andrea Rossi has succeeded to do what was very difficult to be imagined after say his first two experiments he has converted his discovery in a miscovery.
He brought in an entire army of little green credibility eaters.
It is a great enigma why he was not able to get a patent for his discovery. I wrote a lot about his art to doing and not doing things in the same time. His phobia of competition has forced him to irrational things. As long as he really accepts a COP=6 for his E-cat (2, financially thinking) there are obvious troubles with his engineering and development.
However, all these things are of secondary importance. Rossi will go as we all are going, but the E-cat and its descendants will remain and generate energy.
And Rossi’s miscovery was and is a very important one. It has to be understood in the context of LENR, its history of more than 23 years, of its being a mixture of victories and failures, failures being the more continuous phase. Rossi has found a solution. Perhaps he has lost parts of this solution but in long range this is not essential. A torch was ignited and the flame is going on.
The great problem is what has Rossi found, discovered, created?
Philosophically speaking not technically. I tell you how I see the things: LENR is a very difficult, insoluble problem- there is no solution for commercialization inside the simple Ni, nanometric at its best plus hydrogen, system. You can do what you wish; it will not work at a commercial level. This is a ‘be or not be’ problem.

I believe in the efficiency of my problem solving rules: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/02/problem-solving-quasi-desperate-appeal.html
Rossi whose strength is that he has passed many times through desperate situations in his life (a great advantage, I know this!) surely knows, at least instinctively, these rules.
For creating a commercial LENR system- using the Piantelli know-how plus increased energy density- he has applied first Rule No. 5: “NOT what we know, but what we don’t know, is more important for solving the problem.” This means Rossi was aware that the solution is not hidden somewhere in the already published many LENR papers, patents and reports; it is also not in the brain of some great authority from the field. Instead, he has made many probably hundreds, of experiments (here I believe him!) Edisonian style and step-by-step and/or luck-by-luck has found something of value. In the realm of the unknown.
He has used well Rule 18: “Do NOT accept the premises of the problem, change them as necessary and possible”
Rule 18- is essential in showing the difference between mathematical problems with rigid unchangeable premises and real life problems - for these the premises have to be changed in the favor of the problem solver, of the Solution.
I have used this old story: http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/62.html
as the best example for this Rule.
It seems the problem is insoluble, Father and Son cannot please
everybody. Actually the Donkey was not drowned.
I have created a continuation to the story in the very spirit of Rule 18.
“In the evening, tired and angry, Father and Son go to the pub. They tell the story to the keeper (owner)- a wise man.
The keeper says: 'Something is missing here. buy or build a cart and put that Donkey to pull it. You can both sit on the cart and nobody will scorn or offend you."
This is the direct way to apply Rule 18- ADD something to the premises. Rossi has added some chemical compounds, he calls them the Catalyst, I prefer “functional additives.”
Ergo, Rossi has found, discovered LENR+ and we have to thank him for that.

THE FUTURE IS BRIGHT
If we continue to mix the story of the cart and that of Rossi; suppose Father and Son have bought or built a faulty cart, too fragile and uncomfortable, with the wheels not well lubricated so the poor Donkey had to make great efforts to pull it.
A smart and skilled neighbor has fixed the cart, oiled the wheels
so now everybody was happy. For slow thinkers like me and for those not fond of allegories here I want to tell that Defkalion has found a better + than Rossi’s +. Possibly, but not probably like Broccoli.nitrate vs. Cabbage sulphate.
Too many analogies and metaphors seriously harm your mental health and intelligence and patience- therefore this is the END.
This is he end of the writing not of LENR+, because very hot LENR+ Greek style is just starting, preparing to conquer the commercial markets.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

.
I have tried to initiate a discussion re. THE FUTURE OF LENR. I have received some very interesting messages, however about a problem of detail- correlation with a neighboring field.
My intention was different, I wanted to get a variety of ideas regarding trends and possible developments, to learn about the paradigm change in the field *. When Rossi has made his first experiment in Bologna, it has seemed that everything will change,
Ed Storms has found the proper word: stampede. However the things have slowed down and Rossi was able to generate as much informational chaos as technological hopes. I consider a historical chance that Defkalion has not surrendered after the divorce from Rossi and has solved the problems as serious professionals (scientists, engineers, and managers) do. This was like some compensation made by the Moirae for the bad luck at the birth and christening with many fairies uninvited, of Cold Fusion:
effect found in the almost worst metal with a closed electronic conformation, by an inherently dirty method- electrolysis, by people of genius but having an inadequate profession. A bad start as for a runner with fetters.
If the Fleischmann Pons Press Conference was a blunder or a great act of publicity- we well never know because the alternatives as traditional peer-reviewing or presentation at a symposium have not been tried. It was interesting- even with an unusually long period of wait and of try everything you can- with modest founding. But now it is the case that LENR should become useful too. Useful on a planetary scale- and fast. This is my motivation to discuss about the future of LENR.

I firmly believe in the individual wisdom(s) of my friends and colleagues at the CMNS and Vortex discussion groups. The readers of my blog know well that I dislike the Wisdom of Crowds (collective?) and I know that it is not more and not less than the Power of Diversity. For LENR the best example is the Survey http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/2005GluckKrivitSurvey.shtml
This document actually is tragic, describes a very bad situation and… not much has changed in the following 7 years.
The experimental results give the scientific certainty of LENR/Cold Fusion- however the results seem to have some inborn, inherent weaknesses (are ‘small’, happen only when they want and disappear fast). Theories are painfully diverse, theorists are much more uniform- all are convinced that their theory is the α and ώ, kind of local orthodoxy and TOE.
Commercial applications is a subject reserved more for LENR books. Nobody really cares for the scarcity of palladium. How many Watts can you get with maximum 2.10 exp 8 grams palladium- if it works impeccably?
Our world needs now some 1.5 10 exp 13 W power. How many watts will be able to deliver 1 g of palladium when everything will go very well?
OK, actually I have no right to complain re. my failure to initiate discussions about essential, basic LENR subjects- when Ed Storms’ great Guide has generated mainly a long dispute with a theorist- and not about the mode of thinking, taxonomy or conclusions of the Guide.
The root of the problem is a chronic illness of our forums: detailitis people prefer to discuss about details, both experimental and theoretical, than about problems having major impact on the development of the field. Detailitis is well known
in management. I am convinced that the science of management can partially replace or complete philosophy in scientific and technological research and I have enjoyed teaching the managers Management of Technology.
However managerial detailitis can be cured; see for example:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/CriticalChain/message/5538
andhttp://sourcemaking.com/antipatterns/death-by-planning
Managerial detailitis is an erroneous over-confidence in the possibilities of planning even the finest details- it is harmful because it ignores the complexity dynamics and unpredictability of the reality. A form of over-planning.
LENR detailitis on the contrary is a subconscious lack of confidence in the possibility of solving the fundamental problems and is channeling of the creative energies to the minor yet challenging details. Instead of a healthy equilibrium of these two aspects of research.

I have lived many years in a society based on planned economy in which the 5Years Plans were dogmas, the Party was inerrant and infallible and the Leader was more than omniscient; everything was planned in detail. However toward the end, the socialist kind of detailitis was tempered by chaos, corruption and generalized institutional mythomania. All data were false and nobody cared
therefore it became easy to predict any detail.
LENR detailitis is an old problem for me – my obsession- bad reproducibility was never discussed up to the last detail, my poisoning hypothesis was repeatedly rejected, but no real alternative was offered.
The discussion re future of LENR can be divided in more subsections as the future of Pd-D systems, the future of nanometric systems, new ideas.
I am realistic, this will be a slow, step by step process. The first
commercial LENR system will be a positive shock with a high impact. Even if focusing on details will remain, there will be other
details. Sometimes reality is so strong that it can even change
imagination.
But it would be fine to start a few weeks before the Event.
With or without our discussions, LENR will change a lot, fast and will get rid, in great extent, of detailitis.
What do you think about the future of LENR?
Peter
• Cold Fusion Now has written about the paradigm change in energy, from scarcity to abundance http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=17388 but this is a different subject